















^/ J' % --^K* ^^ ^<^ 












<> '«''•'** J 



^ . I ' « XI <^^ (V , " O 




7n A o^ '0?^^^* aP*/ 



Military Order of the Loyal Legion 
of the United States 



Report of the Committee created by the Twelfth 

Congress of the Order, May 21, 22, 19 13, at 

Chicago, IlHnois, upon Amendments to the 

Constitution of the Order submitted 

by Commanderies to the Congress. 












Commanderies Submitting Amendments at the 
Twelfth Congress of the Order 

MASSACHUSETTS 

ILLINOIS 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OHIO 

MICHIGAN 

KANSAS 

VERMONT 



■ Z 



ft ^ , . . 



To THE Commander-in-Chief: 

The Committee on Amendments of the Constitution (1905) 
reports as follows: 

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COMMANDERY 
OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Article V, Section 2 of the Amendments proposed by the 
Commandery of Massachusetts conflicts with Article VI, Section 
2 of the Constitution. 

Article V, Section 3, would render quite possible the inheritance 
from a Loyal Soldier of the right to membership in the Order, 
although the heir so inheriting was the direct descendant of an 
Officer in the Rebel Service. 

Your Committee might have considered this Amendment in 
a different light, if the word "Loyal" had been inserted. 

Section 4. The same objection applies as to Section 3, that 
is, that the descendant of a Rebel might become a member. 

Section 8. This Amendment would limit membership in the 
Second Class to the eldest sons, and if there were no eldest sons, 
to the grandsons in the order of primogeniture. 

The proposed Amendment as to who shall constitute the 
Second Class, conflicts with Section 4, Article V, of the 
Constitution. 

This Committee regrets that the desirable provision for the 
transmission of eligibility to membership to descendants of the 
Third Class cannot be acted upon independently. 

Section 9. This proposed Amendment eliminates the 
classification of succession, and is in conflict with Section 6, 
Article VI, of the Constitution, the Amendment of which has not 
been proposed by any Commandery. 

Section 11. This is unnecessary unless the proposed 
Amendment to Section 8 be adopted. 



Article VI, Section i. Prior to July 4th, 1889, a person 
eligible to membership could make application to any Com- 
mandery. On that day an Amendment became effective pro- 
viding that application must be made to the Commandery of the 
State in which the applicant resides, if there be one, and if there 
be none, to such Commandery as the applicant may select. 

This change was made because experience had shown that in 
some cases, persons who could not have been elected to member- 
ship in the Order from the Commandery of the State where they 
resided, and were known, made application to some other Com- 
mandery, which possibly was less careful in its investigation of 
the application, were elected and then transferred to the Com- 
mandery of the State where they resided. 

The proposed Amendment to Section i, Article XVIII, pro- 
vides that all meetings of the Congress of the Order shall be held 
in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

We believe, in regard to this Amendment, that the ambula- 
tory character of the Congress, meeting over the country, where 
there is a Commandery, at different times, tends to stimulate 
interest in the Order and is of benefit to the members, and in 
many cases eliminates the question of long distance travel to a 
remote point from the Western Commanderies, and it is unfair to 
expect them to send representatives the long distance from 
Washington and Oregon and California to Philadelphia, and this 
Amendment would prevent that exchange of intercourse between 
the members, which should be continued. 

Furthermore, as the Commandery-in-Chief meets every 
second year in Philadelphia, it would be unfair to the Com- 
mandery of the State of Pennsylvania to impose upon it the 
additional expense of holding a Congress there every four years. 

Article XXI, Section 5. As no Amendments are proposed to 
Section 4, Article XXI, if the Amendments to Section 5, Article 
XII, are adopted. Hereditary Companions of the Second and 
Third Classes would wear the Rosette indicating Service and 
the Ribbon indicating that the wearer did not so Serve. 

The proposed Amendment provides that the Rosette now 
worn by original Companions of the First Class, which indicates 
actual service in the War of the Rebellion, shall be worn by all 
the Companions of the Order. 



As to this your Committee believe that a large majority of 
the Hereditary members of the Order neither desire this, nor 
would be willing to accept; and furthermore this Rosette has 
become known and recognized not only throughout the United 
States, but all over the World, as indicating that the wearer was a 
Commissioned Officer of the Loyal side during the War of the 
Rebellion. To grant its use now to others would be a practical 
fraud on the Public and would substantially deprive this Rosette 
of its significance, as an evidence of service, and reduce it to the 
level of the badges of the innumerable societies with which our 
country is flooded. 

Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the Amend- 
ments proposed by the Commandery of the State of Massa- 
chusetts be not adopted. 



AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COMMANDERY 
OF ILLINOIS 

Article V, Section 9. As to the Amendment proposed by the 
Commandery of Illinois to Article V, Section 9, your Committee 
are of the opinion that no one, except a son of an Original Com- 
panion of the First Class, who has joined the Order during his 
Father's lifetime, should be designated as a Succession Com- 
panion, and we therefore advise that the Amendment be not 
adopted. 

Article XI, Section i. Under the decision of the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief, as to the construction of the Constitution, 
Companions of the Second Class are ineligible to office, and 
as this proposed Amendment was designed to make them eligible, 
your Committee believe that during the life of his Father, when 
a Companion of the Second Class is a member of the Order, such 
Companion of the Second Class ought not to hold office in the 
Commandery, as he in no sense represents his Father, but is a 
member of the Order in order that he may attend its Meetings 
and to a limited degree exercise the power of voting. 

Your .Committee therefore recommends that the Amend- 
ments proposed by the Commandery of the State of Illinois be 
not adopted. 



AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE DISTRICT 
OF COLUMBIA 

The Amendments proposed to Article V, which were appar- 
ently intended to change the designations of the various present 
Classes, if adopted would bring up a direct conflict with Section 
2 and Section 6 of Article VI and with Article XXI of the 
Constitution. 

The Amendment also provides that "All of the Articles 
after Article V shall be made to conform to Article V, as amended, 
eliminating the words 'first class' and 'second class,' as applied 
to Original members and Hereditary members, leaving only those 
designated in Article V, Section 4, as members of the Second 
Class." 

Your Committee is of the opinion that such a blanket 
Amendment imposing upon the Commandery-in-Chief the neces- 
sity of changing other Articles of the Constitution, in order to 
comply with it, is not a proper Amendment to be submitted 
to the Congress of the Order. Neither the Congress nor the 
Commandery-in-Chief have power to change the wording of the 
Constitution in any manner not specifically described. 

Your Committee is also of the opinion that it might be wise 
to eliminate the word "Class" and substitute some other desig- 
nation, such as Original Companions, Hereditary Companions 
and Junior Companions, but as no such amendments have been 
proposed, no action to that end can be taken by the Congress. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the Amend- 
ments proposed by the Commandery of the District of Columbia 
be not adopted. 

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COMMANDERY 

OF OHIO 

The proposed Amendment to Section 4, Article V, provides 
that a person elected a Companion of the Second Class by 
nomination of an Original Companion, shall have the same rights 
as to his successor as pertains to Original Companions of the 
First Class, and renders it possible, as already stated, not only 
that the eligibility to membership in the Order may descend to 
persons having no trace of the blood of the Officer through 
whom his eligibility was derived, but also eliminates the necessity 
imposed upon other applicants of proving their descent. 



Article VI, Section i. As to this Article, providing that the 
entire Section be stricken out and the following be substituted : 

"Any application for membership may be made to such 
Commandery as the applicant may elect." 

Your Committee have already expressed their opinion in 
this report. 

Article VI, Section 3. As all the members of the Order 
since its organization, have been elected under the provisions 
of the present Constitution, which requires but Five adverse 
votes to exclude a member, your Committee are of the opinion 
that to adopt this Amendment would not only tend to the 
possibility of the admission of undesirable members, owing to 
the difficulty of getting a majority adverse vote against anyone, 
but would also be a gross injustice to the present members of 
the Order. 

The Committee of Investigation may not perform its duty 
thoroughly; in such case, if there are Five members who know the 
applicant is unworthy of membership, he cannot be elected ; but if 
it only requires a majority vote, he is almost certain to be elected. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the Amend- 
ments proposed by the Commandery of the State of Ohio be 
not adopted. 

AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE COMMANDERY 
OF MICHIGAN 

Article VI, Section i. As to the Amendment proposed by 
the Commandery of Michigan, which is identical with the 
Amendments proposed by Massachusetts and Ohio, as to which 
your Committee have already expressed their opinion adversely, 
we have nothing to add to the reasons there given. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the Amend- 
ment proposed by the Commandery of the State of Michigan 
be not adopted. 

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE COMMANDERY 
OF KANSAS 

It is proposed to change Article V of the Constitution 
(Section 3) to conclude with these words : 



"And they shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges in 
the Order which belong to the Original Companion from whom 
his membership descends, with the right to wear the same 
Insignia and Rosette." 

Under the present Constitution only Original Companions 
can vote for or against an applicant for membership as an 
original Companion. 

The Ribbon from which the Insignia is suspended and the 
Rosette now worn by Original Companions, indicate actual 
Service in the War of the Rebellion. 

The effect of the proposed Amendment will be to give the 
Hereditary Companion the right to vote upon the admission of an 
applicant for membership as an Original Companion of the First 
Class, and to wear the Ribbon and Insignia now indicating actual 
Service in the War of the Rebellion. Companions of the Second 
Class and Third Class would continue to wear the Rosette and 
the Ribbon, which does not indicate actual Service in the Army, 
Navy or Marine Corps of the United States during the War of the 
Rebellion. 

The proposed Amendments to Article XXI of the Consti- 
tution, as published by the Commandery of the State of Kansas, 
are confusing. 

Section 2 reads: 

"Change Article XXI, Section 4, paragraph 2, to read: 
'For Original Companions of the First Class and Hereditary 
Companions of the First Class', " etc. 

The paragraph if so changed would read : 

"For Original Companions of the First Class and Hereditary 
Companions of the First Class, the Ribbon shall have a red 
center, eight-tenths of an inch wide, with a border of white and 
edging of blue, each three and one-half tenths of an inch wide." 

Section 3 reads: 

"Change the third paragraph of the last named Section 
to read : 

'For Original Companions of the First Class and Hereditary 
Companions of the First Class,' " etc. 

It is difficult to tell what words in the Section as it now 
exists it was intended to change, for the words last quoted above, 



but presumably they were the words "For Companions of the 
First Class other than Original Companions." If this is so the 
paragraph would read : 

"For Original Companions of the First Class and Hereditary 
Companions of the First Class, and Companions of the Second 
and Third Classes, the Ribbon shall have a blue center eight- 
tenths of an inch wide, with a border of white and edging of red, 
each three and one-half tenths of an inch wide." 

Section 4 reads: 

"Change paragraph 2, Section 4, Article XXI to read: 

'For Companions of the First Class, other than original 
Companions and Hereditary Companions of the First Class,' etc., 
and change the third paragraph of the same Section to read : 

'For Companions of the First Class and Hereditary Com- 
panions of the First Class,' " etc. 

If changed, as stated above, the second and third para- 
graphs would read as follows: 

"For Companions of the First Class, other than Original 
Companions and Hereditary Companions of the First Class, the 
Ribbon shall have a red center eight-tenths of an inch wide with 
a border of white and edging of blue, each three and one-half 
tenths of an inch wide." 

"For Companions of the First Class and Hereditary Com- 
panions of the First Class, and Companions of the Second and 
Third Classes, the Ribbon shall have a blue center eight-tenths 
of an inch wide, with a border of white and edging of red, each 
three and one-half tenths of an inch wide." 

Taken in connection with the proposed Amendment to 
Section 3, Article V, it is evident that the intent of the proposed 
Amendment to Article XXI was to provide that Original Com- 
panions and Hereditary Companions should wear the Ribbon 
and Rosette indicating Service in the War of the Rebellion and 
Companions of the Second and Third Classes should wear the 
Ribbon and Rosette which do not indicate such Service. 

The proposed Amendments to Article XXI, however, do not 
so provide and they are conflicting. They provide (change pro- 
posed in Section 2) that Original and Hereditary Companions 
should wear the Ribbon and Rosette indicating Service, and 



(change proposed in Section 3) that Original and Hereditary 
Companions and Companions of the Second and Third Classes 
should wear the Ribbon and Rosette, which does not indicate 
such service. 

Practically the same conflict occurs in the changes proposed 
in Section 4 of the Kansas Circular, which seems to be a repetition 
of those proposed in Sections 2 and 3. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the Amend- 
ments proposed by the Commandery of the State of Kansas 
be not adopted. 

AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE COMMANDERY 
OF VERMONT 

This proposed Amendment is subject to the same objection 
as the Amendment to the same Section made by the Commandery 
of the State of Massachusetts. 

Your Committee therefore recommends that the Amend- 
ment proposed by the Commandery of the State of Vermont 
be not adopted. 

In conclusion, your Committee desire to say that while they 
were in entire sympathy with some of the purposes which appar- 
ently prompted many of the proposed Amendments, they were 
powerless under the Constitution of the Order to re-cast any 
Amendment. 

J. Langdon Ward 

John O. Foering 

Chas. B. Amory 

RoswELL H. Mason 

Andrew Cowan 

S. L. Woodward 

Urban A. Woodbury 

Committee. 



H 29 89 




























'5 ♦jj^'- ^ 









O N O ' . ^ 




4 o 



























^0^ 


























<^ "o.o-' .V 'O^^^'^^-'V^'' %*'*^^''\<>'^ «V**^V-'\< 

• rJ* A^ • (A S« A ^o <^^ * Oil^ • ^ A^ * fKvSS A "^n <^^ ' 






o " '■ " " O Jl^ 



^^.<^ 

vP ^ 









■• ** ^« /*v^-' Vc^-^* /^fe\ %/ .♦* 






















/V <\. 'o, » 



, V* o " o 







O N o 



:- ^^0^ ° 




* V , . 



*, o 



*'. o 



'J^ 



w"'3^'*\/ "o^'^^-^'V^" V"*^'\^^' 



* ^0 










r » 




, "^ 







^oV" 




v-o^ 




HECKMAN IXl 

BINDERY INC. |^ 

#NOV 89 
N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 






«A. 'o.T* .a 







